For a slashing of some creeps, we want to see a professional job such as we can expect from John Oliver. Funny or Die delivers it for North Carolina where the governor has just signed into law draconian anti-LGBT measures in the (cough) defense of religious freedom.
38 comments:
If I was black asian indian etc I would be so pissed that such a small class of society got so much attention
I am as tired of hearing LGBT as I am of the Kardasians.
When inmates are allowed to sue the state for a sex change operation the process has gone too far. As it has when "gender confused individuals are allowed to use either restroom. That is an issue as my 7 year old likes to use public restrooms by herself. I dont need to be explaining items like thatvto a 7 year old
I'm more laid back on it and I'm bored senseless with the topic but pols keep fuckin' with them. The attention comes because pols keep throwing it out there and my reaction is holy shit ... just leave them alone.
The laid back aspect is to whether they can sue for surgery if in the slammer (e.g. Chelsea Manning). I suspect cruel and unusual punishment could be used to good effect in defense of permitting the procedure. In any case, I believe I'm inclined to permit the surgery even without the guiding law as this change can't come on a whim, it's too difficult to accomplish the whole process. No-one would undertake such a thing unless there is the gigantic need or a monster case of headworms. I can't possibly know which one drives it, maybe both, maybe neither, how should I know.
I also believe it's the state's obligation to pay for it because the prisoner likely has no other means of support. Yup, that looks like it's about my case on it.
I dont care if they are a case of headworms I should not have to pay for the surgery. Should the chick be allowed bigger boobs because of the body shaming her cellmate is giving her.
Prison health care should not be dramatically better than VA healthcare
Dunno if VA will do that. Maybe they will (larfs).
Probably got to disagree on whether the state pays as I don't think it's right to deprive access to something which could have 'relieved the problem' on the free side of the wall but that goes right to what about the boob job. I guess I'll go with the girl isn't likely to kill herself over a boob job but gender confusion can do that. Also, there's rehabilitation but this may, in fact, result in fixing the criminal (or not) or at least pacifying him/her (or not). It just may and seems a minimal expense.
My empathy comes from thinking my only wankish dreams were maybe it's bigger, cooler, knows more dance steps, or some shit like that but I never wished it wasn't there. For someone to have that thinking is so far beyond my experience it makes me believe it must be an immensely powerful force. I really don't believe I or the state have the right to stand in the way of that even if I think it's completely demented which mostly I do. Caitlyn Jenner only does the change halfway?? wtff is that??? Some kind of porno nightmare! I guess she likes it even if I can't possibly understand it.
Your thinking is exactly the problem with the left wing.
I dont care if they would be suicidal without the surgery.
The VA only pays for medically necessary surgery. Very few insurance plans plan for SRS.
But kill someone and congrats the government will foot the bill
Hell the government is footing the legal bills for the man who shot Congresswoman Gifford for stress resulting from the shooting and incarceration He is asking 25M. Research his reasons.
The left is way past reality on this topic .
Want one does in the brdroom is up to them I dont care what the do to each other as long as the it is some kind of normal (no kids)and everyone says yes and sets limits
A little quick search.
Certain Obamacare plans approved it this year.
So quit your job and get Obamacare will cover or kill someone and go to jail.
Otherwise you have to pay for it yourself as elective surgery
I think there's a good pitch already for why it should be covered, isn't a whim, etc, etc.
For yer boob trauma, I'm inclined to think that's more headworms than real as it's apparently extremely widespread in Brazil where it's almost the standard to buy some plastic boobs. That doesn't strike me so much as life-threatening as simple crowd control, herd behavior.
I would pay for boob reduction, tho. I've seen the relief and life change which comes to an extra-largely boobed woman when has the reduction and I don't see that as an optional thing. It's much more than a head zing she gets out of it. Saves her back, for one thing.
Unknown why the empathy but maybe there's just too much damn pain in the world and that fixes some of it. That fix should come because that's not a pain which was laid down by the court. I don't look at such things as binary insofar as performing this procedure means someone else won't get heart surgery or some such. I don't believe that's true.
Dunno if the left or anyone owns this madness as funding a lawsuit against someone you shot makes sense only in some completely depraved mind. I have no idea what thinking justifies such a suit.
I'm fine with holding the prisoner in a cell and doing all those jail things but the court did not mandate torturing the thug / non-thug / whatever he/she is. The disagreement I imagine is over whether this constitutes torture but I believe I will be holding that one because I just can't imagine someone would undergo such a thing unless a profound need exists.
They can do want they want but I should have to pay for it. Especially if it would not be paid for by normal insurance
I've paid tons of taxes and have as much right as anyone to bitch about paying for things but I'm seriously not affronted by this and the fact other insurance programs would not pay for it, in my view, only shows the inconsistent and inadequate coverage across the board due to the insurance company incompetence and corruption. It is a trivially tiny part of any national debt so it's not clear why this is a big deal, really.
It isnt a big deal for you. As you want the government to do and pay for everything.
I have great insurance coverage
Oh but I pay for it myself. Simple concept. Obama has now listed the internet as an essential utility and is installing it in all public housing. No worries prisoner already have it.
Why get a job? free housing free food a free cell phone and now free wifi service
WOW average benefits have gone up in the last 2 years since I last worked with young ladies trying to get back on thier feet.
The average package is about $38K for a mother of two.
So how on earth can she ever get off that program?
No $15 minimum isnt enough for her to start working
Unclear what purpose in exaggerating my position.
She probably can't work with two kids in tow. Unclear what you want with people in that situation as she can't leave the kids for a job unless it also pays enough for a babysitter, etc.
Seems to me she needs a tapered benefit as income starts arriving the benefit tapers down. Probably wouldn't work with the system as half-ass as it is now but there's no reason it shouldn't. Your salary is reported anyway and failing to disclose any is fraud, off to jail with you.
Part of the problem, as I'm ever so fond of noting, is many of the best union jobs went to Mexico. I noticed just now GE light bulbs are made in Mexico. Ain't that charming.
What makes union jobs so great. The pay increase goes to union dues.
Amazon pays $16 just to pack boxes. Not union no dues
I dont exaggerate your position You are a full blown left wing socialist.
In fact you are further left than that qualification
Of course a graduated solution works but dems dont want it because she loses her entitlements and gop wants welfare to be workfare
Stock answer is they keep kids out of coal mines, etc, etc.
A better answer is America was blazing during the fifties and into the sixties with unions running in full-tilt. Good-looking middle class and not top-heavy with nearly-rich ones but a good spread. Same time Donald Trump was the best. I've got some disagreements with his assessment but, in general, the American economy was roaring, great respect in the world, all the good things.
I strongly believe undermining the unions and wrecking that balance of economic power has led to a steady decay in the quality of the workforce. The unions, in my view, represented a form of checks and balances with the rich but that balance is now shot and huge job problems come, etc, etc. That's compounded by failure to retain the jobs even at lower pay scales and instead they are shipped out altogether to other countries thanks to NAFTA. What's a kid to do.
Unions paying $45 an hour to sweep 100 feet of floor and not allowed to do other jobs that killed unions.
My father in law made $60 an hour $90 with overtime. He drove a people mover. At the start of his shift he drove mechanics to a spot raised them up to work on cranes a d went to sleep 8 hours later he lowered them down.
He made $720 that day
He retired stopped working at 48 years old received 95% of his pay as a lay off for 3 years. Then retired at 51 with 80% of his pay.
That is what killed unions
Do the math on what he costs them working and retired. He is 80 now and will end up making mire money retired than he did working.
I see your examples but they don't tell me the extent of such abuses across the union as a whole. They make great copy but there's not enough evidence to know how much the mean relative to the percentage of workers vs slackers in the union.
These arent slackers in the UAW. It us the culture. Which is why UAW was paying on average $75per hour to build a car against Japans $45per hour.
Believe what you want I watched it live
Ask Laughing Gecko about Roadway trucking a union outfit. His dad a union member got us some work unloading a truck. It took the three of us about 3 hours. We were then told to go home and were paid 8 hours. As union rules says that you get paid 8 hours for a clock in even if you go home before 8 hours.
Or Ronald who in the union contract was if paychecks arrived late then they were psid overtime until the checks arrived
The list is endless
Unions were needed in coal mines and garment industry many years ago but the outlived thier usefulness
It would be just as legitimate to say 'the rich have outlived their usefulness' insofar as they do a great deal for themselves but little for anyone else. Don't take that personally as I believe I have been clear 'the rich' is the class of people America pretends does not exist and the number of philanthropists in that cadre is lower than in an invading army.
There are all kinds of arguments you can make against unions but there's no denying the strength of the middle class when the unions were strong. Those were some of the best, most productive, and most forward-looking times I've ever seen.
The 'kill it then replace it' logic used so frequently by conservatives shows almost zero respect for the idea of fixing things.
The kill it and replace it is your logic on healthcare.
The times you speak of were great because of the economic strength of the nation in general. The US was an industrial powerhouse. The industries that powered it are all gone brcause of the greed of the unions. Not the union members but those that ran the unions. They are no different than super rich both flourish because of the hard work of the middle class.
The industries left because it was cheaper to leave than fight the unions.
That cop is too easy as a one-sided blame is almost always crap in just about any context. There's hardly ever a truly innocent party in a divorce, a fight, blah-de-blah.
When I see the blinding wealth of the ultra billionaires, the immediate question is this what the unions kept them from having. If yes then it was an outrageous piracy because only pigs engage in that type of grandiosely conspicuous consumption (i.e. owning it just to have it and making it twelve times bigger than is really necessary for anything). There's a whole raft of nouveau riche who waste money in grotesque ways just because they can.
I'm all for making the big bucks and having oodles of fun but they go into some other world of depravity. The country got a better deal from happy union people than it ever got from the happy ultra rich.
I am not talking about the union members, they git an awesome deal and more power to them. But the union powers drove the factories overseas because of what they asked for. And I have very little time for the CEO and owners thst make more than thier entire workforce.
We no longer have an outo industry or steel industry because of union boss greed.
The members didnt benefit as much as you think as the union dues are astronomic.
When the UAW tried to unionize my delivery drivers they told them wages would go to $10 per hour from the $7.25 they were making. They glossed over the fact that union dues were almost 20 % of their wages. Tips included which they would now be required to claim.(they presently werent claiming them even though required by the IRS) So thier net pay would go down. And they would only be allowed to drive they could no longer pick up extra hours as cooks
But the UAW would add thousands of new due paying members Again run the math 20% of all delivery driver wages. What a deal
Union dues for auto industry worker are only about 3% because they make so much per hour
I didnt want to leave the impression that factory UAW paid 20%
No doubt of abuses but it still doesn't kill the logic for collective bargaining, rather it emphasizes the need to do it right. Thanks for acknowledging the gouging on the top end as well as I believe it has to adjust on both ends before it removes any question of balance.
I know the union(s) was/were powerful at Lockheed Martin but that appears to be only benefiting the ones running the union rather than the rank and file so much. Bad management will destroy just about anything.
When you agree there are problems at both ends, there is room to make deals and fix things.
Union victory
They are still allowed to collect union dues from non union members
Which is another case of the minority view controls the land as only about 10-12% of workers are union
The basis for that collection comes from the union being the agent for collective bargaining and all employees benefit from that regardless of whether they are in the union. It's not the minority view or the union would never have been voted into the place at all.
Well strike up another union victory TATA is leaving Britian. The company is leaving England and up in the air iscwhat happens to the 15000 steel workers when they close the plants. Cameron may well have to have the government buy the plants to keep them open. We all know how that will turn out
Union victories are hardly epidemic in the same country which sat back while Thatcher slammed the coal miners union all to hell!
Pretty soon there will be plenty of union members that can freefall As the Chinese are very happy to bring those industries to the homeland
The money in question is that which the union spends on political campaigns. It spent over $325k on political campaigns just last year. Thats not collective bargaining
In fact it is collective bargaining when the opposition is working assiduously to break your back and the back of your union.
Thanks to Reaganton, the Chinese and Mexicans have all kinds of U.S. factories. Free enterprise is a beautiful thing, don'tcha know. Blaming that migration on unions rather than simple opportunism by CEOs only insults union members two ways. The only defense for union-busting was trickle down but it's over thirty years later and nothing ever trickled down.
Donating money to political campaigns is in no way shape or form collective bargaining.
The CEOs moved the factories where it is cheaper to manufacture. Unions served a purpose moons ago. Now they just run labor costs through the roof til the companies leave.
I know that computer programmers were smart enough to defy unions.
Of course everything is Reagans fault but he just presented the idea Clinton put it into action and left it for Bush to sign
Reducing the situation such that it vilifies the union workers and absolves the CEOs is hardly realistic. That premise has been flogged so many times it's like Spin and Marty do another turn playing The Hardy Boys ... and that's OLD (larfs).
I just send back to yer brother that you're not so likely to polarize in this way! The purpose in writing is not to make little jokes along that line but rather to extend the position no strongly polarized approach is ever going to reach a satisfactory deal with the opposition ... and there's always opposition.
I dont let CEOs off the hook. It almost always two to dance
A bit of discipline on both sides could make a world of difference
Post a Comment